JUDGMENT Jyoti Mulimani, J. - Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally. 2. This is claimant's appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment and award dated 10.07.2013 passed in MVC No.7309/2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for the sake of brevity) 3. It is the case of the claimant appellant that he is working as a coolie, daily labourer by shifting the stone slabs on his bullock cart. On 19.10.2011 at about 5.30 a.m., when he was proceeding in the bullock cart on the left side of Agali Pavagada Main Road, Somaghatta towards Puresanghanahalli village, Madakasira Taluk, Ananthapura District, Andhra Pradesh with due care and caution and observing traffic rules and regulations and when he came near Narasambudi village cross, at that time, the APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-11-Z-2611, driven by its driver with high speed in a rash and negligent manner came towards extreme left side of the road and dashed against the appellant's bullock cart. As a result, the bullock cart turtled. Due to the said impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The two bullocks were also killed at the spot and bullock cart was badly damaged. Hence, claimant urged that the accident occurred solely on the negligent driving of the bus in question. Therefore, he sought for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'). 4. In response to the notices issued by the Tribunal, respondent appeared through its counsel and filed statement of objections and denied the averments in the claim petition. It was contended that the petition is bad for want of territorial jurisdiction since both the parties are permanent residents of Ananthpura District, Andhra Pradesh and the accident also took place in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. It was contended that the petition is bad for want of territorial jurisdiction since both the parties are permanent residents of Ananthpura District, Andhra Pradesh and the accident also took place in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration: i. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained injury due to RTA alleged to had been occurred on 19.10.2011 at about 4.00 a.m. on Agali Pavagada Main Road near Narasambudi village cross, Somaghatta, Madakasira Taluk, due to the rash and negligent driving of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-2611? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, from whom? iii. What order?" Additional issue: "i. Whether the respondent proves that this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present petition?" 6. In order to substantiate his case, claimant examined himself as PW.1 and Dr.B. Vishwanath as PW.2 and another witness Sri.Naresh @ Nagesh as PW.3 and produced 17 documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.17. On behalf of the respondent, the driver of the bus Sri.B.Nagaraju was examined as RW-1 and they have not produced any documents on their behalf. It is pertinent to note that there was a specific defense with regard to the territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal had framed additional Issue No.1 with regard to jurisdiction. The same is held in negative holding that the Tribunal at Bangalore has got the jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim petition. The Tribunal after considering the material on record, awarded compensation of Rs.6,61,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs Sixty-One Thousand only) together with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of the amount in its entirety from respondent. Aggrieved by the judgment and award, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment. 7. Sri.R. Lakshmana, learned counsel appearing for appellant contended that the judgment and award passed by the MACT and Court of Small Causes, Bangalore is arbitrary and contrary to the law and facts of the case. Learned counsel vehemently urged that the claimant has suffered the following injuries: - "1. Type IIIA open fracture both bones of right leg lower 1/3rd. 2. Type IIIB open fracture both bones left leg lower 1/3rd with segmental comminuted fracture both bones upper 1/3rd. 3. Inter trochanter fracture right femur. 4. Learned counsel vehemently urged that the claimant has suffered the following injuries: - "1. Type IIIA open fracture both bones of right leg lower 1/3rd. 2. Type IIIB open fracture both bones left leg lower 1/3rd with segmental comminuted fracture both bones upper 1/3rd. 3. Inter trochanter fracture right femur. 4. Crush injury on the left ankle and foot. 5. Amputation left big toe." He submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW.1, being claimant himself and the evidence of PW.2 Dr.B.Vishwanath, Orthopedic surgeon. The Doctor's evidence is based on records and clinical examination. He has stated that the claimant suffered permanent physical disability of 55% to the right lower limb which comes to 27.5% to the whole body and 48.267% to the left lower limb which comes to 24.133% to the whole body. Therefore, he contended that the total whole body disability is 27.5% + 24.133%, that would be equal to 52%. Hence, learned counsel contended that in view of the grievous injuries suffered by the claimant he had to take prolonged treatment. But the Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the evidence of the Doctor which is very much crucial in determining the compensation in this case. Learned counsel further contended that though appellant has spent considerable amount towards medical treatment and medicines, but the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the same and has erred in awarding meager amount under the head 'medical expenses. It is further urged that the Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.4,86,000/- under the head of 'loss of future income', by taking into consideration the income of the claimant at Rs.5000/- per month as against Rs.9,000/- per month and the Tribunal has taken 45% disability as against 100%, which according to him is wholly unjust and unreasonable. Lastly, he contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation of Rs.6,61,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Therefore, he submitted that the award of the Tribunal calls for interference and accordingly, prayed for allowing of the appeal. 8. Per contra, Sri.D. Vijaya Kumar learned counsel appearing for respondent vehemently contented claimant injured is a resident of a remote village in Andhra Pradesh and the accident also took place in Andhra Pradesh and therefore, the Tribunal at Bangalore had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. 8. Per contra, Sri.D. Vijaya Kumar learned counsel appearing for respondent vehemently contented claimant injured is a resident of a remote village in Andhra Pradesh and the accident also took place in Andhra Pradesh and therefore, the Tribunal at Bangalore had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. Learned counsel submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant claimant is not entitled for any additional compensation. A further submission was made that the claimant is a coolie in a remote village in Andhra Pradesh and a coolie in that area, would normally earn a sum of Rs.2,000/- p.m. (Rupees Two Thousand only). Hence, the income taken by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Insofar as the disability is concerned, learned counsel vehemently contended that the evidence of PW-2 cannot be looked into, since he is not a Doctor who has treated the claimant. Therefore, it has no evidentiary value. Next, he contended that the disability in respect of right lower limb will be 22% and 19% to the whole body as per the guidelines. Therefore, he contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken the disability as 1/3rd to the whole body. But the Tribunal has erroneously proceeded to assess the disability at 45%. Lastly, he urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Therefore, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for our consideration: i. Whether the appellant claimant is entitled for additional compensation? ii. What order? 10. The occurrence of the accident on 19.10.2011 involving bullock cart and APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-11-Z-2611 and accidental death of two bullocks and the damage caused to the bullock carts and the claimant sustained grievous injuries are not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant's appeal is one for enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment. The Tribunal has held that the documents produced by the claimant are in corroboration with his case. It is noticed that RW-1 who is none other than the driver of the bus admitted in his cross examination that he was charge sheeted by the jurisdictional police and he has not challenged the same. The Tribunal has held that the documents produced by the claimant are in corroboration with his case. It is noticed that RW-1 who is none other than the driver of the bus admitted in his cross examination that he was charge sheeted by the jurisdictional police and he has not challenged the same. It is not in dispute that claimant sustained accidental grievous injuries and he first went to Government Hospital, Sira and then to Government Hospital, Tumkuru. Later, claimant was admitted at Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. 11. The ground urged in the present appeal are mainly relating to the income, disability and interest awarded by the Tribunal. As regards the determination of income, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of any material evidence placed on record to establish the actual income of the claimant while determining the income notionally, it would be appropriate to refer to the normal mode of determination of income adopted by this Court. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to determine the monthly income of the claimant notionally at Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred only), generally adopted for the road accident which occurred during the year 2011. 12. Regarding the aspect of disability, ordinarily, 1/3rd of the assessed disability would be taken into consideration. The Tribunal after assessing the material evidence on record has assessed the disability at 45%. Considering the disability assessed by the Doctor PW-2 on the basis of records and clinical examination vis- -vis the material evidence on record, the Tribunal has rightly determined the disability of the claimant to the whole body at 45% which in the opinion of this Court appears to be reasonable. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the said finding. In view of re-determination of the monthly income at Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred only), applying the multiplier 17', considering the age of the claimant as 30 with the disability at 45%, the 'loss of future earning due to disability' would be Rs.6,500 X 12 X 17 X 45% = Rs.5,96,700/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Seven Hundred only). The claimant has suffered severe pain and agony owing to the grievous injuries sustained in the accident in question. Ex.P14 is the case sheet / in-patient record which discloses that the claimant was treated as an inpatient at Victoria Hospital from 19.10.2011 to 26.11.2011. The injuries are grievous in nature. Hence, this Court deem it appropriate to award Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Thousand only) towards 'pain and sufferings' as against Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal. The amount of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty-Five Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal towards 'medical expenses' remains intact. Similarly, this Court deem it appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards 'attendant, nourishment & conveyance charges'. It is pertinent to note that in spite of the best treatment, the claimant cannot walk without support and unable to carry weight. Having sustained grievous injuries, the claimant is not in a position to attend the daily activities of his life in a comfortable manner. Further, the claimant has to forego his amenities of life which he would have otherwise enjoyed, but for the accidental injuries. Taking into consideration the gravity of the injuries sustained and its impact on the entire life of the claimant, this Court deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards 'loss of amenities and comfort' as against Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the claimant is a coolie and he had one bullock cart and two bullocks and on account of damage caused to the bullock cart, the bullocks were also dead in the above said road accident. It would have taken minimum of three months to get new bullocks and to get the bullock cart repaired. Due to the death of two bullocks and damage caused to the bullock cart, the claimant would have suffered loss of income for a minimum period of three months. This Court has re-determined the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.6,500/- p.m. Therefore, this Court deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.19,500/- (Rs.6,500X3=19,500/-). towards 'loss of income' for a period of three months. 13. This Court has re-determined the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.6,500/- p.m. Therefore, this Court deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.19,500/- (Rs.6,500X3=19,500/-). towards 'loss of income' for a period of three months. 13. Accordingly, this Court re-determine the compensation as under: - S. No. Particulars Compensation awarded by this Court (in Rs.) 1 Pain and suffering 75,000/- 2 Medical expenses 45,000/- 3 Attendant, nourishment & conveyance charges 30,000/- 4 Loss of income during laid up period [Rs.6,500/- x 3] 19,500/- 5 Loss of future earning due to disability [Rs.6500/- x 12 x 17' x 45%] 5,96,700/- 6 Loss of amenities and comfort 1,00,000/- Total 8,66,200/- Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 6,61,000/- Enhanced compensation awarded by this Court 2,05,200/- Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant time, this Court deems it appropriate to award interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of claim petition till realization. 14. Hence, the following: ORDER 1. Appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. 2. The claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,05,200/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Five Thousand Two Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 3. The respondent shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with 6% interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. On deposit of the enhanced compensation amount, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be deposited in any Post Office and / or Nationalized Bank deposit for an initial period of five years and the claimant shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. The balance compensation shall be released in his favour on proper identification. Registry is hereby directed to draw up the decree accordingly. No order as to costs. 5. Office is directed to transmit the original records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.